Help us reach our end-of-year support goal!

Your support, financial or otherwise, is what keeps the 'Geek online.
Only
23 days
left to get bonus GeekGold!
- learn more.
"Because BGG has such a great community. It's like a huge support group for our board gaming addiction."
-
Paul Reney (RedJak7)

Usually, players simply agree to a draw. But if one side will not agree, then for official tournament games, there is either a 40-move rule or a 50-move rule. For example, according to Pask, if 50 moves are made by each side without any captures and without either side advancing a piece to the king row, it's a draw.

Pask also mentions four time repetition of a position as a draw. The player claiming a draw should have a record of the game, if playing in a tournament.

Repeating the same exact position 3 times is a draw. So is going 40+ moves (in some tournaments, 50+ moves) without a capture or crowning.

Between good players, this should not happen if one side has a positional or material advantage. In fact, in most positions with a material advantage, such as 3 kings vs. 2 kings, it's possible for the player with more to either trap pieces or force an exchange of pieces to reduce it to something lower, until it eventually reaches 2 vs. 1, a win for the side with 2.

Between good players, this should not happen if one side has a positional or material advantage. In fact, in most positions with a material advantage, such as 3 kings vs. 2 kings, it's possible for the player with more to either trap pieces or force an exchange of pieces to reduce it to something lower, until it eventually reaches 2 vs. 1, a win for the side with 2.

We played last week and ended up with 3 kings vs 2 kings, but neither of us is a good player, so after moving around for a while we called it a draw....

I was curious if there was some rule we were missing, so came looking here. Yay BGG.

Games are like songs: you never get tired of playing the best ones over and over, and you can enjoy them all by yourself.

Movies are for entertainment; books are for learning; games are for mental exercise.

russ wrote:

APolaris wrote:

Between good players, this should not happen if one side has a positional or material advantage. In fact, in most positions with a material advantage, such as 3 kings vs. 2 kings, it's possible for the player with more to either trap pieces or force an exchange of pieces to reduce it to something lower, until it eventually reaches 2 vs. 1, a win for the side with 2.

We played last week and ended up with 3 kings vs 2 kings, but neither of us is a good player, so after moving around for a while we called it a draw....

I was curious if there was some rule we were missing, so came looking here. Yay BGG.

It's not necessarily a draw, but it sure is tricky. I read a little study of the 3-kings-vs-2-kings endgame in a book I own, so I know the player with 3 kings can force an exchange, then win with 2 vs 1. But it's not quick or intuitive.

I don't know if it works in all board situations either. There could be some board situation where it wouldn't work.

I don't know if it works in all board situations either. There could be some board situation where it wouldn't work.

3 vs 2 is always winable in any board situation if the 3 King player knows what he/she is doing. The usual way is to force an exchange; however, the techniques for forcing exchanges are not normally known by novice players. (But they are relatively easy to learn.)

And of course, once you exchange (down to 2 vs 1) wining is relatively easy, even if the 1 king player runs to a double corner. Just need to know the method - again not hard to learn/memorize.